How Fuel efficient is your car?

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:31 am

Well, this gets better mileage, and definitely ain't dorky.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:33 am

Here's that sexy Opel GT:

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:03 am

Ugly Dougly wrote:Well, this gets better mileage, and definitely ain't dorky.

There is a reason I'm a cager now, except for the light electric.
Everything is recorded on closed circuit or mobile now.
Everything!!!

This is not pleasant, but still mild compared to the crashes canyon carvers have.
WARNING

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:27 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:Well, this gets better mileage, and definitely ain't dorky.

do bikes get good mileage?
I thought the bigger ones were in the 30's......at best.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:37 pm

Depends.
My friend's 1.5 litre twin averages 50 mpg.
Bikes are at a serious aerodynamic disadvantage due to frontal area vs length.
This is why very slippery cars can outperform them.

Shrouded bikes do quite well.
There is a suisse bike with bmw power and a cage that has done well in high speed crashes.

My taste runs more in this direction.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:07 am

ygmir wrote:
Ugly Dougly wrote:Well, this gets better mileage, and definitely ain't dorky.

do bikes get good mileage?
I thought the bigger ones were in the 30's......at best.

Bonneville T100 790 (2002 - 2005) - Fuel Economy Range: 48 to 57 mpg - 20 to 24 km per litre - 4.9 to 4.1 litres per 100 km

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:43 am

Tav Falco lived near me for years and started restoring triumphs.
He brought a few of them to mint.

I came really close to buying a raked and chopped triumph a long time ago.
They always looked better than the harleys.
It was a '68.

Captain Goddammit · Post by **Captain Goddammit** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:32 am

gyre wrote:

OK you had a lot of very good answers to "What's dorkier than a Smart?"
But- what was so wrong with the Pacer? It was a reliable, solid car that was available with a 304 V8! Even if the styling wasn't the greatest, it's not as ugly as a Smart.

gyre wrote:

The Matador was actually pretty sharp, especially compared to most of what's been available new for the last 20 years.

gyre wrote:

Now come on... this beautiful '61 Dodge Dart is "Dorkier than a Smart"?

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:21 pm

I was told that the Pacer, by virtue of it's short wide stance, was un-drivable when there was any ice. It just went round and round. The 304 was a piece of garbage. When the LAPD had AMC [401] for a few years, they tried to crash them as fast as possible to get rid of them. JEEP had AMC engines for several years. All of them were famous for valve-train problems. Even the military AMC jeep engines were garbage.
The rocker stands were cast Aluminum. As soon as the engine broke in, there wasn't enough pre-load on the lifters and it all got noisy. The castings were so bad that even if you milled off the feet .020 to get back your pre-load,,, they still wore out the pivot until it all started clanking again. Olds had marginally better stands.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:14 pm

I never saw a Pacer with a V8.
If you don't live in washington, the Pacer made a dandy solar oven.
Definitely seems dorky to me.
At least it's not boring.

The Matador always seemed very weird to me.
A lot of length and not much beauty or aggressiveness.
I just can't figure out what they were thinking.
I remember a review calling it the most beautiful car ever.
I couldn't tell if they were joking.
Is there something I'm missing there?

As for the dart, there are far worse automotive horrors from the fifties and sixties, but I couldn't find a photo online.
Many were so bad no one would buy them even then.
Some are almost impossibly rare because they sold maybe a few hundred and are being sought for the rarity and novelty factor, and I think the incredible ugliness too.
There are production cars almost no one has ever seen.

The Smart has the aerodynamic problems of short motorcycles, and shortness is a styling problem too.
Trying to deal with those problems and coming up with something even acceptable is quite a feat.
They claim they did a lot of wind tunnel work to get it to work as well as it does.
Given the limitations, I think they did pretty well.
It's hard to make even a short sports car look good.

Even this one looks far better in the flesh.

Lotus next to the Smart coupe

I have one of these.
Just ran across the picture.

Captain Goddammit · Post by **Captain Goddammit** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:58 pm

Of course Pacers suck in snow and ice, virtually all front-engine, rear-drive cars do.
You guys are right, it's seemingly impossible to get good lines with such a short overall length like the ForTwo has. That Smart coupe isn't half bad!
I think the extremely unusual proportions and looks of the ForTwo, though ugly as fucking hell, do sell the car. If it was just another conventional-looking car, it wouldn't get all the attention it does.

gentlemoose · Post by **gentlemoose** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:30 pm

[quote="Ugly Dougly"][quote="ygmir"][quote="Ugly Dougly"]Well, this gets better mileage, and definitely ain't dorky.

[/quote]

do bikes get good mileage?
I thought the bigger ones were in the 30's......at best.[/quote]

Bonneville T100 790 (2002 - 2005) - Fuel Economy Range: 48 to 57 mpg - 20 to 24 km per litre - 4.9 to 4.1 litres per 100 km[/quote]

I'm on a Triumph America (cruiser, ~800cc). I don't know what the rated specs are, but I get 40-45MPG around the Bay Area.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:05 pm

Studebaker Avanti. Hey baby wanna go for a ride in my weird car?

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:30 pm

Here's a pipe dream for ya.. Vihicle-to-Grid..aka V2G..

So i'm down town and dumping my power.... Now I want to go home.. WTF do i need depleated batteries for.. Or do I buy gas to power up the electric Co...

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:36 pm

"The rules will cut emissions from vehicles by more than a third over the next four years. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 086362.ece

FIGJAM · Post by **FIGJAM** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:44 pm

84 chevy 350 3/4 ton 4x4 empty 10mpg. Loaded pulling a loaded trailer 10mpg

MadCellist · Post by **MadCellist** » Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:16 am

04 Chevy Cavalier Sadan

29 mpg city
36 mpg highway

When it was new I got 36 city and 41 highway. After 100K miles it's going down hill. I need to get about $1000 worth of work done to it to get it back up,

-MC

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:52 am

The ethanol tax on mileage is part of that loss.
Try cleaning the mass air sensor, but be very careful of what you use.

FIGJAM · Post by **FIGJAM** » Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:33 am

I had a toyota pick up and the check engine light came on. Dealership said it was the mass air sensor. $600 to install a new one.I sneered, I laughed, I scoffed. Then bought some carb cleaner, gently removed the mass air sensor (dont touch the micro screen) and sprayed through the micro screen. all fixed!!!!!!!!!

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:30 am

They do get out of kilter as they age, and replacement can be good.
Very cheap to do on some cars.
About $350 on others if you shop around, for the part.

Some carb cleaner is too aggressive.
Good idea to get the stuff made for the sensors.
Cleaning really can help.

Some cars, like ford, go into default mode easily and mileage goes to hell.
On the other hand, ford sensors are very cheap, even custom.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:03 pm

I came across this and wanted to share this with you.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/fuelin ... feces.html

If this is as good as they say it is then we might be able to meet all of our needs in a few years. Feces, garbage, grass clippings, seaweeds, the list goes on and we throw most of pulp products into the garbage anyway.

AIIZ

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:14 pm

Hey AZ........where ya been?.............

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:45 pm

FIGJAM wrote:84 chevy 350 3/4 ton 4x4 empty 10mpg. Loaded pulling a loaded trailer 10mpg

That reminds me of a "78 Ford F250 4x4 in 1979 we took a trip to ALASKA and back. 3 months pulling a 21' trailer behind us. Didn't matter if we were on dirt averaging 40mph or pavement averaging 60mph. Nine miles per gallon day in and day out.

Now my work truck gets 9mpg. But it's a diesel grossing 18k. A 6L engine cranking out 525 ftlb of torque and 375hp. That F550 keeps up with the traffic flow very nicely. Makes that 351 in the F250 back then seem like a pussy. Especially when you consider they got the same mileage.

Now my private vehicle gets around 20 in town and,,,, well if I keep below 80mph, it would get 24mpg on the highway.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:38 pm

This is the latest in the scary peak oil scenario;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e25306.htm
Sins of omission

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:22 am

Algae diesel seems to be coming of age;
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ ... es-for-ipo

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:22 pm

Pretty damn cool;
http://www.wimp.com/solarhighways/

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:40 pm

Another interesting article;
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ ... rid-engine

VEECH · Post by **VEECH** » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:00 am

...who cares?

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:13 pm

Interesting E-Type Jaguar hybrid;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ?ITO=1490=

neon tetra · Post by **neon tetra** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:35 pm

Mid to high 40's normally in the Prius. But fully loaded with the rooftop carrier box... down to about 34 & change.

How Fuel efficient is your car?

What is your gas mileage"

Don't Buy the Hype